Re: No Wonder Kodak Went Broke ...

On May 21, 6:36 pm, Mxsmanic <> wrote:
> Dudley Hanks writes:
> > As noted before, humans operate on a fight or flight basis, which has served
> > the species well for millions of years.
>
> Some human beings might. I don't.

I think it's that you don;t realise.
One branch of humans were the on a fight or flight didn;t operate well
were the Neanderthals and they died out.
Some theories think they were to stupid to take flight when teh co0ld
weather set in northan Europe.
They were strong and goodat fighting and hunting but didn't have the
inteligence to know when to run from a stronger enemy
so some got killed off before they bred. Maybe your the last of
them ;-)

>
> > Why change it if it isn't broken?
>
> If it was designed to keep people from being eaten by tigers, it's broken
> today.
>
> The fight or flight reflex kills people often enough. Many emotions in general
> do the same. You cannot save yourself if you panic.

it's not about panicing as that's higher level thinking.

>
> > See, now that's a perfect example that your tactics confuse people morethan
> > help them. You snipped the relevant info that would provide the foundation
> > for future discussion. All that is left is a snippet that can lead off on
> > many tangents.
>
> Answer the question: If companies are doing these bad things but not telling
> people about it, then how do you know about it? Or are you just making things
> up?

Depending what it is or what you see as bad may alter things.
>
> > In the context of our discussion, you say that the powers that be should
> > continue putting any kind of facility they want, anywhere, and it won'tbe a
> > hazard to anybody because, if the masses don't know about it, it can't hurt
> > them.
>
> It depends on the type of facility, but the one under discussion isn't a
> hazard to anyone.
>
> > Moreover, the masses should accept this situation and trust that the
> > powers that be know all and can take precautions to protect everybody from
> > every evil or vice imaginable or not...
>
> They don't have to accept if they are not told about it. There are many, many
> things that are not revealed to the masses.

And tehre are many many reasons for that, including the masses won;t
understand or care.

> > My contention is that the general public should be informed as to what types
> > of governmental / corporate activity is allowed to be present in their
> > vicinity, whether they understand the risk or not, and the powers that be
> > should respect that, since it is the public that will bear the consequences
> > of any miscalculation..
>
> Many activities are without risk. And for those that carry a risk, it is
> impossible for the public to assess their desirability if it does not know
> what the risk is. An uninformed decision is often worse than no decision at
> all.

Yes in some cases, but what of misinformed decisions ?
>
> > Therefore, if your statement is referring to the Kodak case, a disgruntled
> > Kodak employee brought the situation to the attention of the public, which
> > has given the debate its genesis...
>
> He probably just wanted to make Kodak look bad, knowing that the media would
> pick it up and make a circus out of it.

There could be other reasons, how can you be so sure what a persons
reason(s) are.

>
> > But, according to you, if things are kept secret, they can't hurt anybody...
>
> No. There are many things that cannot hurt anybody, and so there is no harm in
> keeping them secret, and if keeping them secret avoids triggering hysteria,
> the secrecy might actually be a good idea.

Might be but usually there's an alteria motive for such secrecy.
>
> > I'd say that approach is simplistic and doesn't lead to long term stability
> > of either public institutions or public safety...
>
> You can say what you want.
>
> > It was the job of the Fukushima engineers to design a safe nuclear reactor
> > that was to be located on the shore of an island a short distance from one
> > of the world's most active fault lines. They obviously didn't anticipate
> > that a quake on that fault could produce a wave that could swamp their
> > generators.
>
> Obviously.

That hadn't factored in the magnitude of the quake or allow for such a
tsunamia wave.
>
> > Maybe it's hindsight, but I think I could have done a better
> > job had I been consulted ...
>
> No, it's just hindsight.

I'd agree with that.
It's easy to say you;'d have built a wall 100ft high around it or
maybe 200 ft.

When I first lived on my own I made sure I had THREE tin can openers,
there's no way I was going to reply on one not working and the other
getting lost.
I do a simialr thing with backups.

> > I don't, but See above ...
>
> No need to see above. When you learn how the technology works, then we will
> talk.
>
> > Common sense might be a good alternative, see above ...
>
> There is no such thing as "common sense."

Common amonst those in a community or like minded people.

> > As for their qualifications, perhaps they were hired simply because they
> > know the boss?
>
> Or perhaps they were hired because they have 40 years of engineering
> experience in some of the most complex technological domains around. Which is
> it? Do you have their resumes?
>
> > If corporate human resource practices are kept secret, how can we be certain
> > they know what they're doing??
>
> Why is it your business?
>
> > Hence, the fact that pilots were able to see the risk but the companies'
> > security "experts" didn't supports my contention that the security experts
> > were hired more because they knew the boss than because they knew their
> > jobs.
>
> Pilots are not necessarily the most qualified people to assess security risks.
> Their job is to fly airplanes. Would you ask the security experts to pilot the
> planes?

An intresting Q, you'd have thought that experts would be looking at
the plant
and not at teh flight controls of their plane.

> > Since I would have recognized the security risk if I'd done an
> > assessment, or even casually thought about the issue, this is another
> > example where I could have done a better job than those who actually got
> > paid for it. Interesting how that works...
>
> It's called hindsight. It works for everyone, but never at the right time..

There's a southpark episode about that.

> > So, the pilots are stupid?
>
> Pilots are good at flying. They are no better than the average Joe at other
> things.

Yeah they're no better at play golf than anyone else, but some might
be better golfers than me.

> > Polling them and acting on their concerns didn't
> > make sense? The fact that action on their concerns would have prevented
> > 9/11 demonstrates nothing?
>
> A lot of things might have prevented 9/11.

Yes 1000s of things making everyone go through 24 hour security checks
might have put them off.
Making passengers board a plane naked would put a lot of muslim
extremists, off amonst others.
As would making them drink a beer before flying, wouldn;t put me off
though ;-)

>
> > If I don't like the idea of putting a nuclear reactor on the shore by an
> > active faultI'm stupid?
>
> No, but your concern may or may not be justified.

I wouldn;t have but a reactor on a 3 mile island doesn;t sound big
enough and too close
to a large population......
>
> > Polling me an finding out that I could foresee a tidal wave taking out
> > the reactor wasn't worth the time or money?
>

Well they did and all the senerios from previous quakes in teh area
were small
in comparison
> Hindsight again.
>
> > If I am cautious about putting a source of weapons grade uranium in a
> > densely populated neighbourhood, I'm stupid?
>
> Not necessarily. You could simply be misinformed, or you could be the type of
> person who allows his emotions to control his behavior, rather than his
> intellect.

yes understanding the dangers and from what is important, I'm not sure
that
weapons grade is relivant, as the quake and Tsunami wasn;t due to the
grade or uranuium.
>
> > Polling me and learning that I
> > could have told them that, at the very least, somebody would find out sooner
> > or later and the company would have a PR fiasco on their hands wouldn'thave
> > led to a better solution?
>
> It's not really a PR fiasco.
>
> > Events over the past 30 or 40 years seem to be on my side more than they are
> > on yours. But, if you are your own authority, you probably don't seea
> > problem with that...
>
> I don't allow emotion to control my behavior. It makes life easier, safer,
> less stressful, and more productive.

I let my emotions control me to some extent but I can also control my
emotions to some extent.

Advertisements

On May 24, 7:51 pm, Mxsmanic <> wrote:
> Whisky-dave writes:
> > I think it's that you don;t realise.
>
> No, I think it's that I don't. In close calls I can recall, fight or flight
> was not a factor and would not have helped. Rational behavior helped.

How do you know what rational behavour is ?
In very bright light we squint or cover our eyes, is that rational
or a flight or fight reaction where we automatically protect our eyes.
Even my cat does that.
>
> There are many astronauts, pilots, soldiers, etc., who will agree I'm sure.
>
> You can panic when the emergency is over. If you panic during the emergency,
> you're dead.

That is a differnt senerio,, because of the situation required traing
for you to be in that situation.
Animals know for themselves that if they are in a fire they're flight
or fight tells them to get away from the fire.
Whereas you might prefer to set off a fire alarm, read the
instructions on a fire extingiusher or pull the emergency cord.
None of which get you away from danger so arent; adressing teh
original problem.
Remind me of a secratary here who on hearing teh fire alrm decided to
'panic' and go to the touilet as she
didn;t want to stand outside the building in the cold whie wanting to
pee. That's what rationalising teh situation did.

> > Some theories think they were to stupid to take flight when teh co0ld
> > weather set in northan Europe.
>
> The Inuit didn't take flight from cold weather, but they are still around..

That was their life and they didn;t have anywhere to go, most animasl
moved to where they could hunt.
Most moved to Southren Europe driing the ice age.
Thats why most of precent mankind came from asia and Southern europe
and places of warm
as those that stuck to the cold climates werent as sucessful a species
from the point of population growth.
>
> > it's not about panicing as that's higher level thinking.
>
> Emotion and panic are not rational processes at all. Both can be deadly.

Depends on the degree, both can be none deadly too and even save a
life.
It is only our emotions that stop us eatign rotten food we don;t liek
the smell of rottening flesh
for a very good reason it's the flight responce stay clear because it
can kill.
That is also why children genrally prefer sweeter tasting stuff
because most poinsenous
plants taste bittor or sour so the natural flight reaction to sour
berries is to spit them out
not swallow, even animals have this inteligence.

Most peole also think it's advantagous to kiss a partner/lover but why
is this flight or fight well kissing was original used for passing
food humans don;t use that method any longer
but teh animal instict is still terhe isn;t it, it's not rational to
kiss, it passes diseases on and so does sex for that matter
so why is it improtant for teh species, any species , you want to
aplpy your ratiojnal responses to romence then go ahead.....

Lets here yuor rational reason for kissing........

>
> > Depending what it is or what you see as bad may alter things.
>
> Yes. If anything with "nuclear" in the name scares you, you'll definitelyhave
> a perception very different from mine ... but not necessarily an accurateone.

But I work less than 100 yards from the old nuclear enginaerring
depament
I went to the reactor we had in marshgate lane.
If it scared me I wojh;lt have gone, but also having a healthy respect
for radioactivity is a good idea.

> > And tehre are many many reasons for that, including the masses won;t
> > understand or care.
>
> Or they would be frightened for no reason. Like the change from NMR scanning
> to MRI scanning.

Or they might have a reason, that you fail to understand.

>
> > Yes in some cases, but what of misinformed decisions ?
>
> They are just as dangerous as uninformed decisions.
>
> > There could be other reasons, how can you be so sure what a persons
> > reason(s) are.
>
> By doing research, instead of guessing based on emotional impulses.

Your reaserch in to the half life or uranium didn;t go to well did it.
So hwo would you evalute such as thing is your reaserchy is a factor
of 1000 out.

>
> > Might be but usually there's an alteria motive for such secrecy.
>
> No, usually there is not. Just because something is unrevealed doesn't make it
> bad.

it doesn;t make it bad, but most will be suspicvious that it's maybe
not good
and that is the best option, if someone ask me to move a box of metal
from place A to place B
and didn;lt given me a reason why they couldn't do it I might be
suspicious.

In the UK they built on previosuly floood ed areas not that the told
anyone and then a few years later the new
houses were flooded, what a suprise, now why dod the delelopers keep
it quite that they'd built on flood planes ?

>
> > That hadn't factored in the magnitude of the quake or allow for such a
> > tsunamia wave.
>
> They did, but they didn't anticipate such a large wave with such a high
> probability.

Correct because they were basing it on records which is pretty much
all they could do.
I'ts easy with hindsight to say it should have been bigger.
In fact I'd have built it 100miles high enough that no one could fly
planes into it,
I said the same about the twin towers, they should have been better
protected.

>
> > When I first lived on my own I made sure I had THREE tin can openers,
> > there's no way I was going to reply on one not working and the other
> > getting lost.
> > I do a simialr thing with backups.
>
> I've heard that there's a saying in the military: two is one, and one is none.
> Same principle, and I tend to agree with it. Ideally I like to have an extra
> of everything, which allows me to use the first one more flexibly and with
> greater reliability.

yes but when someone else is holding the purse strings it get
difficult.
It's easy to decide to wera an extra jumper just incase it turns cold
but to spend a few million dollars
on a jumnper that;'s protect you from radioactive fallout due to an
enemy attack well how many do you own ?

>
> > Yeah they're no better at play golf than anyone else, but some might
> > be better golfers than me.
>
> How can you tell which ones?

It's called observation.

> > I wouldn;t have but a reactor on a 3 mile island doesn;t sound big
> > enough and too close to a large population......
>
> Three Mile Island has never killed anyone.

Luckily, but why did it happen ...
Why didn;t they have sufficint back up systems in place.
Did yuo hear about any possibilty that an aciidetn might happen
there......
Why wasn;t it knopw that such a thing could happen ?

>
> > yes understanding the dangers and from what is important, I'm not sure
> > that
> > weapons grade is relivant, as the quake and Tsunami wasn;t due to the
> > grade or uranuium.
>
> Yes.

Yes to what ?
>
> > I let my emotions control me to some extent but I can also control my
> > emotions to some extent.
>
> There are situations in which it's fine to let emotions control you,
> particularly if those emotions are positive (empathy, compassion, etc.). But
> in other situations, a failure to base your behavior on reason rather than
> emotion can be fatal.

Advertisements

On May 25, 3:50 pm, Mxsmanic <> wrote:
> Whisky-dave writes:
> > How do you know what rational behavour is?
>
> It is behavior that can be justified by logic--behavior that a computer could
> carry out.

It has nothing to do with computers.
>
> > In very bright light we squint or cover our eyes, is that rational
> > or a flight or fight reaction where we automatically protect our eyes.
>
> It's neither. It's a simple reflex.

But why have this reflex what is the purpose, cover yuotr eyes and you
can;t see anything.
You could fall off a cliff where's your logic there ?

> > It is only our emotions that stop us eatign rotten food we don;t liek
> > the smell of rottening flesh
>
> No, that is instinct.

No it;'s the smell,.

>
> > Lets here yuor rational reason for kissing........
>
> I don't have a rational reason for kissing, which is why I don't engage in it.
>
> > Or they might have a reason, that you fail to understand.
>
> They don't.

You mean you don;t or are yuo really an expert on how everyone thinks.

> > Your reaserch in to the half life or uranium didn;t go to well did it.
> > So hwo would you evalute such as thing is your reaserchy is a factor
> > of 1000 out.
>
> My figures for the half-life of uranium isotopes are correct.
>
> > Reason radioacive substances are dangerous, that is a fact.
>
> Granite is radioactive. Is it dangerous?

But why ?
Have you ever thought about it.
Some are learned or are personal to individuals like wheich wione they
prefer,
but as just aboubt everyone is turned off by rotten flest why ius
that
flies, hyenias and other animals aren't turned off, in fact they find
itn attractive .

>
> > It has a level of danger attched to it, which can then be evaluated.
>
> So does a nuclear plant.

Only by those that really understand them, the rest just follow like
sheep.

<snip>
>
> You guys haven't been anywhere near a ripe dead body have you?
> A body that has been in water for about two weeks, or one that has been
> badly burned, or has been discovered by a neighbor after several days.
> That is a distinct odor you will never forget. Speak to people involved
> in body recovery operations and investigations. Specially trained
> cadaver dogs don't have too much trouble locating bodies and burial
> sites, even after several years.
>
>

I've had mini whiffs. Nor at all pleasant. Several years ago we had a
horrible smell in the house, that just kept getting worse. Turned out my
wife had accidentally dropped a chicken behind a cabinet. The odor
permeated our house, and was so bad we moved to a motel for a few days.

I ndon;t need to In heard the details froim scintsits who study these
things.
IIRC it was This Week In scince that reported on the chemicals/odour
produced by rotting flesh
which is caused by a particlualr bacteria which will kill hiumans in
even small quantities
so were' very reluctant to put anaything that5 smells like that
anywhere near our noses and mouth,
because it's so toxic.
> A body that has been in water for about two weeks, or one that has been
> badly burned, or has been discovered by a neighbor after several days.

That happened near me recently, soemnone died and after 3 days he was
discovered,
I don;t know the details but I have taken over his cat....http://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave
Photography plug just for a change..
I think they were all taken with my new ipad,

> That is a distinct odor you will never forget. Speak to people involved
> in body recovery operations and investigations. Specially trained
> cadaver dogs don't have too much trouble locating bodies and burial
> sites, even after several years.

You can train animals to do certain things, you can train bees far
quicker than docks too
only takes them a few minuites to learn to detect explosives it takes
dogs weeks of training doesn;t it ?
I've even heard you can trian humans, but not usually with instincts
or our senses.
Hukans use technology for earthquake warnings I heard all the large
animals leave earthquake zones before
as they can detect the quakes.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck

On May 29, 5:40 pm, Mxsmanic <> wrote:
> Whisky-dave writes:
> > flight or fight prevents eye damge yes.
>
> No, I was talking about the reflex that turns you away from a bright light or
> causes you to squint or hide your eyes.

So why have that reflex, what's the point of it. ?
> It's not always fast enough, though,
> especially for things like lasers, microwave weapons, and solar eclipses.

It is fast enough, but some think it's inteligent to override those
instincts.
As for microwave weaons or lasers it's hardly relivant as they aren;t
natural sources
that humans have encountered for 1000s of years.
>
> > But why?
>
> Nobody knows for sure, but it's probably wired in.
We do know why.

TYhe earlist life on teh plante has to do the same as the first light
sensors
we're probbly used to get away from light as whehjn the Earth was
first suitable for life' there was lots of dangerous
UV about that's one reason life stayed deead in teh oceans, the first
light sensors were mkost likely used to enable
the first life to aviod direct sunlight as it was pretty fatal.

> A lot of poisons have a
> bitter taste, for example, and we instinctively dislike bitterness. There's
> probably a connection.

there is a connection a very stronhg one like I said kids don;t like
bitter things
they like sweet thinngs and most people as they get older tend to eat
less sweet things.
Also one of the reason kids don;t like alcohol; on the first few
tries.
They also believe colour vision came about so we could select the
safer fruits which were most likely
to be red/orange as there's no other reason for colour, most animals
that have faster acting eyes see in monochrome
or very reduced colour. Of course humans now use colour to identify
many things.

>
> > Only by those that really understand them, the rest just follow like
> > sheep.
>
> And they panic like sheep, too.

But is there anything wrong with teh panic reaction, those that panic
know they could be in a dangerous situation
thos ethat don;t could end up dead. The 'idea' behind panic is to do
something anything to escape a dangerous or harmful situtaon
in mostv cases doing nothing is worse than doing something.

Share This Page

Welcome to Velocity Reviews!

Welcome to the Velocity Reviews, the place to come for the latest tech news and reviews.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to chat with other enthusiasts and get tech help from other members.
Sign up now!